The Difficult Choices That We Face, Pt. I

Today, we focus on the idea of making the right choice for not only transitioning utility power across the nation to alternative sources but also ensuring that the process is streamlined to prevent higher costs for the consumer.

The example given in today's article examines a referendum choice for voters in the upcoming elections in California. Proposition 7 enforces a 20% alternative energy generation for utilities in California by 2010. Other quotas include 50% by 2025.

The measure itself is being supported by progressive thinkers but certainly not individuals who are considering corporate costs. This level of intervention, unrewarded or without grant, promises to cost these vital companies an exorbitant amount to reformat the way that they conduct business and provide a valuable resource to the communities that they serve. Dependence on electricity ranks it as an essential commodity; the risks imposed by mandating conversion without proper respect to cost-benefit analyses will leave these corporations vulnerable.

The ideal solution to soften the blow for any energy utility corporation is to provide incentives and grants. The benefits will surely be multifaceted; conversion will come at a faster rate, non-compliance fines might be minimized, and, most importantly, the consumer will be assured that rates will be less for their energy of choice, one that is responsible for the environment and, at the same time, is responsible for business.

----

http://www.dailycal.org/article/103292/ca_to_vote_on_two_different_energy_propositions

CA to Vote on Two Different Energy Propositions

By Kat Murti
Contributing Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:09 am
Category: News > City

Californian voters will see two energy-related measures on next month's ballot that promote alternative energy but propose different methods of addressing environmental issues.
Proposition 7 would set standards to increase usage of alternative energy sources by utility providers, while Proposition 10 would increase incentives for alternative energy-fueled vehicles.
"They're completely separate," said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for Yes on 10. "People have been linking them because they both have the word 'energy,' but they are not in any way related."
Supported by Californians for Clean and Solar Energy, Proposition 7 would require utility providers, including those that are government-owned, to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard to which private electrical corporations are held accountable.
If passed, the requirement set by Proposition 7 would double by 2020 and reach 50 percent of all power by 2025. The proposition would also impose penalties for non-compliance.
Many environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club California are against Proposition 7 because it could shut down smaller alternative energy companies.
Proposition 10 works as a two-pronged measure. First, it provides a total of $3.425 billion in rebate incentives for vehicle owners to upgrade to alternative energy technology. The rebate is given only if vehicles achieve a 45-mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency, accomplished using natural gas.
The proposition would also create a $1.25 billion budget for further alternative energy research and incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.

However, critics said the measure's focus on natural gas should not be viewed as a long-term solution.
"(Natural gas) is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, which is good," said Dan Kammen, a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group. "Then again, the benefits for driving our vehicles on natural gas-those benefits are not so great."
The proposition would also provide cities and colleges with grants for alternative energy projects and training in renewable technologies.
Those opposing the propositon have made allegations that its largest backer is Clean Energy Fuels Corporation, a natural gas fueling station company owned by T. Boone Pickens, chair of the BP Capital Management hedge fund.
According to detractors, the goals of the two measures line up with standards already set in place by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law was passed to help control greenhouse gases by setting a timetable to bring California into compliance with higher energy accountability standards.
Lee Friedman, UC Berkeley public policy professor, said that since provisions of the 2006 act are not scheduled to be completed until 2012, the propositions would stunt its implementation.
"They're (not necessarily) bad ideas per se, but there's always the question of who should be making decisions," Friedman said.
Thoma said she hopes voters will distinguish between the two measures and their decisions on them.
"I think the voters are sophisticated enough to realize (the measures) are both different and make smart, sophisticated decisions on each measure separately," she said.
Tags: ELECTIONS 2008, STATE ELECTIONS 2008, ENVIRONMENT


See also:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_(2008)